Thanks

My pleasure. I have edited Wikipedia before, so I am used to the MediaWiki syntax (although I'm having to adjust myself to the software differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia). GregG 22:14, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks 2

Thanks for the correction. Somehow I was on the wrong school's website. JunoD 00:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)

reply

Re: Personal attacks

I have sometimes made personal attacks out of anger on a few other sites, only to regret it later. I do know that anger is not an excuse for making personal attacks. I will do my best to behave better in the future. :) Thanks. Marcus2 17:36, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

New Main Page

Looks interesting. Where are you going with this? --Ed PoorTalk 14:09, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm hoping to redesign the mainpage so that Conservapedia content is more prominently featured, as opposed to links to external sites (which are useful, but should be given lesser prominence than articles on this site). Additionally, the new divisions should make it less likely that an item is placed in the wrong location (such as in MPR). Also, I am learning CSS along the way, so that's a plus, too. I must admit, though, that I'm not that good of an artist, so the page is open for tweaking (and possibly insertion of images) by those with a more artistic eye. GregG 14:13, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Sticking to the point

Just say where you disagree and why. I've been known to make mistakes before. Why, just last month I made one. :-)

That was the "personal" part of your comment. Try to avoid this sort of thing in the future. Thanks. --Ed PoorTalk 16:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

The underlined part of the second comment is being taken completely out of context, as can be seen by the rest of the phrase you quoted. Thanks for your explanation, though. I want to put this behind me so we can get to working on building an encyclopedia. GregG 17:17, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

EDITED TO ADD The first comment is not a personal attack. Saying that one's position is "groundless" does not say anything about the person. As a mathematician, I have made stupid statements from time to time. Identifying positions without basis as such is not a personal attack.

Also, I want to point out that none of the "personal remarks" you mentioned above were in my original response that you removed as personal comments. The comments you point out above were part of my explanation for why I restored my original comments. Of course, if you have any other comments that you think were personal, feel free to point them out so I know what to avoid in the future. I know that you've pointed out a comment I made to Mr. Schlafly that was, in hindsight, ill-advised, and I retracted it immediately, thanks to your help.

Anyways, let's get back to work on the encyclopedia. GregG 17:29, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Sorry if my conception of personal remarks is excessively strict. I might be overreacting, but a lot of other users seem to have declared open season on the established users. Let's keep everything about the project and the articles, and avoid any "you statements". --Ed PoorTalk 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Good correction

Indo-European

Greg; I do not want Indo-European redirected. I want it to be a blank slate,. (Tabula rasa.) As said on the talk page, I want it to be used for an article on the history, culture etc. of this group of peoples. What you have done means that every time someone tries to link this term to the Hittites, Iran, the Indus Valley Civilization (I've already had to type "Indo-Aryan" to avoid this) and an unknown number of other subjects, they come automatically to the language. AlanE 00:38, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Quotes

Thanks for you follow-up on the quotes today. I often forget these important details. --Ed PoorTalk 16:34, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

RSS Feed

I also added to the Todd Akin page, the Talk:Todd Akin page and created a new page Council for National Policy it all disappeared. If you have anything that would help back it up please let me know. Thanks, Wschact 22:00, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Tony Sidaways' blog

An excerpt from Tony Sidaway's blog: "That in the age of polarized politics a godless homosexualist liberal like me..."[1]

I hope this partially clears up a misunderstanding. Conservative 21:05, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the clarification. It was edits like this and this that I was referring to. And certainly, if a public figure has openly stated a moral fault of theirs (like Dawkins and atheism), I don't see a problem. Thanks for taking into consideration what I had to say. GregG 21:26, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Up until recently, I used to say, "Are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence that atheism is true." One of the reasons for that is that atheism is a stealth religion which has no proof and evidence supporting it. [2][3] I did this because some atheist gentlemen from a wiki which is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry often post to main page talk before they are shut down by the 90/10 rule. They seem obsessed with Conservapedia and myself and engage in endless rumination and speculation about me and other Conservapedians in between proclaiming that the end of Conservapedia is nigh.

I do think that you make a good point. Thanks for the input. Conservative 23:16, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Thank you for your feedback. I must say that I do take removing others' posts seriously. I will take your advice though about editing other articles (I might get to work proofing the 4th government lecture and finally creating an article on Concepcion). GregG 20:00, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Just can it, already. Work on substantive articles, and leave User:Conservative the heck alone. You're trolling conservative by removing those comments.--James Wilson 07:37, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

I've nominated you for sysopship

Probability

I saw your edits to the probability article. You have left σ-algebra as a redlink. Do you intend to make an article about it? I would suggest that a decent treatment of σ-algebras, and the Kolmogorov axioms, might be a bit beyond the target audience. But if you can explain this, and show how these axioms apply to the study of probability, I'd be interested in seeing it. SamHB 22:21, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Certainly I don't think such topics are necessary for middle or high school students (the intuitive notion of probability as serves well). However, for those that want to study probability or statistics seriously, a rigorous axiomatic foundation is necessary. I recall seeing other articles with more in-depth treatment of certain topics in mathematics on Conservapedia, and I think it would definitely improve the project. GregG 22:32, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Congratulations

Congratulations - you understand American Government & Politics very well, and have a bright future!--Andy Schlafly 21:50, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for the compliments. Alas, I am planning to have a career in math instead, but every American citizen should understand how our government works so that they can effectively participate in our republican form of government. GregG 10:16, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Evolution

I read your essay on evolution, and I really like it. I've put an "endorsement" of it on my own user page. The sentence "Taking Genesis literally additionally leaves one with the uncomfortable position of having God (who is The Truth) create reason for us only to have us not use it with regards to an important question: our creation." was spot-on.

A thing you might want to say about transitional fossils is along the lines of: scientists see broken trails of evidence all the time, such as, literally, broken particle tracks in a subatomic particle detector, or broken tracks of ancient Roman roads in radar images, or oxbow lakes near a meandering river, and so on. They make perfectly valid inferences that there is a causal or evidential chain from A to C, even if they can't literally see B. JudyJ 23:04, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you for the compliments! Admittedly, I would have to do more science research to finish out the list (my biology knowledge comes from two years of high school courses), but I will consider adding your suggestion to the page. GregG 10:09, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Obamacare

I noticed your delete. Please understand the Snopes, Factcheck, and the others like Politifact only masquerade as neutral. They are not the final say nor are they trustworthy. They are liberal funded websites with an agenda. With that said, I reviewed their "false" claims and found them to be inaccurate. Obamacare doesn't use the word exempt, rather opt-out and they use the phrase religious conscience clause. The law as written is vague but enough can be gleaned from it, such tax and insurance mandates. Muslim most certainly "Can" and very likely will take advantage of the loophole and opt-out for religious conscience. We already know that Christians cannot opt-out for religious conscience. My sources
say "Presumably, they [Muslims] will be exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the religious exemption," and "Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews." --Jpatt 10:04, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I am not using the sources as "X said Y", therefore "Y". I looked at all three sources and I fully agree with the well-written reasoning in each article. In particular, I will note that an individual can only claim a religious exemption if they also forfeit Social Security benefits, which Muslims have not done (but, incidentally, Amish have). GregG 10:29, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I intruded on your territory

Sorry, but I felt that a quarter of a year would mean he would never return. I reduced it to the (still lengthy) 1 week. If you have a problem with that, you can revert me. brenden 20:47, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, I received your message and answered it in my talk page area.

Email

My address is on my user page, drop me a message if you get a chance some time... I have a couple questions for you that I'd rather not post in public if you don't mind. Thanks, Fnarrow 14:50, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

"Evolutionists and atheists, I know it will be hard to keep down your breakfast tomorrow, so out of Christian charity I have provided some soothing music for you. It is Chinese music. Try not to think about China, the world's largest atheist population, experiencing an explosive growth of Christian creationism in its cities where many of the most influential Chinese live. China's atheist leaders are panicking about this matter.

In December of 2012, the National Intelligence Council issued a report that China will be more influential of a power than Europe (EU area specifically) by 2035. Darwinism can help make countries which were formerly great powers into weak second rate powers, while Christianity and the Protestant work ethic can assist developing countries to overshadow formerly great powers (See also: European Darwinism). And the wonderful thing about Christianity and biblical creation belief is that they are true worldviews." See: Christian apologetics

(content created by User:Conservative and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy)

"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." - Sun Tzu

A message to Conservapedia's evolutionists re: me/us not reading talk pages or posting to talk pages until at least 2016:

Not only am I enjoying my respite from unreasonable and quarrelsome Darwinists (who cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and are very afraid of debating VivaYehshua), being more productive overall in various sectors of my life, but I will also have more time to promote various conservative/Christian causes which are important to me.

Also, you needn't worry about me/us breaking this absence from talk pages before 2016 as I/we have informed various parties concerning this matter plus I/we are very committed to this matter.

By the way, current events certainly do not bode well for Darwinism do they?

Reuters reports: "Europe is in the midst of its longest recession since it began keeping records in 1995 — even surpassing the calamity that hit the region in the financial crisis of 2008-2009."[4]

Biblical creationism is growing in Europe and its growth rate will accelerate amidst Europe's economic woes.[5]

Oh my. Is he still on about poor VivaYeshua? I thought he'd have given up on that now Viva is banned from Shock's chatroom. An amusing fact about Viva, by the way, is that he isn't even a christian; he's a messianic jew and according to User:Conservative's narrow brand of protestant fundamentalism will be roasting in hell with all us unbelievers.--MasonFW 18:11, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Just plain nuts

The clown I blocked is a repeat troll who engaged in his own brand of harassment in the past. Karajou 10:49, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for letting me know. I don't have the CheckUser tool that you and the other sysops have. GregG 11:40, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Spam accounts

I've just put 5 users into spam. Could you please check to make sure I haven't went crazy and jumped the gun here, because this feels like a lot.Ryancsh 20 June 2013 19:58 GMT

Looks like you did a good job. There's actually an easy way to stop spammers creating pages, but nobody at Conservapedia seems interested in knowing about it. Just set up Mediawiki so that new accounts have to wait half an hour before creating any pages. Spammers won't hang around that long.--VeronnicaS 15:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Deleted

As a courtesy, I removed your edits that you recently deleted, so they do not appear in the history either.--Andy Schlafly 00:36, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Thanks a million for that! Hope I didn't keep you up too late :). GregG 00:38, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Interesting links

Liberal Myths

Maybe you should discuss on the talk page before wholesale deletions, some of which were posted by Aschlafly.--Jpatt 20:27, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

Sorry, we apparently posted to each others' talk pages at the same time. I would be happy to discuss why I removed those items in further detail than what I wrote in my edit summary, but I was wondering if my suggested title change to Liberal beliefs would work; this would seem to moot the issue. GregG 20:30, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't think your suggested title is any better; in fact it is far worse. "Lies" implies knowledge that the statement is false as well as an intent to deceive, whereas "myths" is broader and cover false statements that nevertheless have some adherents. GregG 20:41, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

A proposal

If you want to have a détente as far as us going back and forth on the creation vs. evolution, I am amenable to that.

On the other hand, if you wish to object to my anti-evolution activities, I certainly won't feel remorse pointing out the various evidential failings of evolutionism and the bitter fruit it has produced and continues to produce. Conservative 03:21, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Spelling

Congratulations. But you should have left it for the champ. Now we'll never know. :-)
SamHB 20:45, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Christians who have interacted with atheists have a common observation that atheists rail about how supposedly stupid and/or crazy they are. Once in a while, I like to tweak their nose about these matters as I find it amusing to do so (spelling bee competition ranking, Word Dynamo test score, a certain gentlemen saying I am quite rational when debating a certain party at this website, the I/we issue and the errant personality profiling, etc.. :) Conservative 01:48, 2 August 2013 (EDT)

Common core

Just a quick note about my modus operandi on the Essay:Common_Core article: Lately I've been trying to keep a strict "hands off" policy about removing any material from a page, even if I think it's completely wrong. There seems to be a policy that one must not remove, or "censor" as it's sometimes called, anything. You can see that policy very clearly by looking through the histories of the Theory of relativity, Counterexamples to Relativity, and E=mc² articles. But I found that adding information is OK. The best example being a whole new article, Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity. There has been peace in the relativity department (at least as far as I am concerned; some people still don't "get it") since then.

When I added the analysis of proof coverage in the Common Core article, I took out Andy's statement that there is no coverage. Then I realized my error, and put it back in when I added the analysis of pre-calculus.

This is not to criticize your actions in any way. Just letting you know where I was coming from. Of course, as a sysop, you can do things that I can't.

No, it was placed at the top of the sub-topic by me, as an answer to anyone who thinks we should think like liberals do, instead of thinking for ourselves. The only connection it had to Tony is what you made of it, and nothing more. Karajou 09:58, 25 October 2013 (EDT)

I added a note to the image indicating that you were the one who added it. Also, when you get the chance, could you add information about the image's licensing or how fair use applies (to the extent it applies to image use on talk pages) to the file page; it seems that due to an oversight, this was not included? Thanks, GregG 13:09, 27 October 2013 (EDT)

Birth issue

I don't think there has ever been any doubt about Mitt Romney's place of birth, and I'm confident he quickly and thoroughly provided proof of it as most Americans have done.--Aschlafly 00:03, 3 November 2013 (EDT)

Obama did release a copy of both his short-form and long-form birth certificates, let reporters examine them, and presented a drivers license as voter ID to cast a ballot by early voting in October 2012. I think this is certainly enough evidence to state his birthdate as fact, especially since other articles, like Phyllis Schlafly, report birth dates as fact on less evidence. GregG 14:33, 3 November 2013 (EST)

Yes, he let reporters "examine" them, and they proclaimed them to be "genuine", but Obama never expected them to be subject to forensic examination by a law enforcement agency, which proclaimed them to be a Photoshop forgery. To date, no one has been allowed to see the originals. Karajou 15:02, 3 November 2013 (EST)

I don't see any point in continuing to budget my limited time to educate people who believe in wild conspiracy theories against all reputable evidence. I shall go back to working on articles that can really make Conservapedia stand apart from everything else on the Internet, like my Mainstream media attacks on arbitration article. I should also get through dismantling the AAJ's most recent diatribe against arbitration. GregG 08:34, 5 November 2013 (EST)

You contradicted yourself

GregG, you contradicted yourself. If the 15 questions for evolutionists are stupid as you maintain, then why did you contact Kenneth Miller about them? Either you were being stupid or the questions are legitimate to raise. I know the latter is the case. Seems like you are being mighty contradictory in this matter! And I know the questions were important and relevant to the creation vs. evolution issue, because even Richard Dawkins' moderator at his website posted the 15 questions and said they were good/interesting questions (If memory serves and it may not, it was at Dawkins' old website). By the way, how is Kenneth Miller doing as far as satisfactorily answering the 15 questions for evolutionists? Have you heard back from him yet?

For Your Information

"...religion is still following the trajectory of a failing social network..."

The percentage of atheists in the world has significantly dropped since the 1970s. See: Global atheism.

In the next 11 years, there is expected to be 300,000,000 more self-identified Christians in the world and 3,000,000 less atheists in the world.[9]

Will these global trends affect the Western World? Professor Eric Kaufmann, an agnostic who teaches at the Birbeck College, University of London, told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[10][11]

Next, you didn't show that the number of atheists in the USA is rising. Until you show that "Nones/no religion" people are actually atheists and not largely non-sectarian Christians/theists, I have no reason to believe your claim.[12][13]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will endeavor to attempt to find a category for my new articles and find a way to link them in existing articles (to the extent that such articles are not permanently protected). GregG 16:45, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

Thanks. One last thing. Try to to have your articles link to other relevant articles. I linked Chick-fil-A from Greatest conservative corporations for example. It will increase the user visitor experience if the visitor can explore matters in greater depth. Conservative 16:48, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

Edit access during "off hours"

Hello GregG. I wish to be able to edit between
midnight and 7 AM Pacific Standard Time since I am free during
those hours. Would you please unblock my editing ability during
those hours? That is when I have the most free time. I sent an e-mail to conservapedia@zoho.com, cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com but with no reply.

Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015

I may be partly to blame for Cons's most recent binge

See the bottom of my talk page, especially the last screenful or so, starting with "It's a nice day". When people try to talk Cons into more normal activities, he often digs in even deeper, and this was no exception. Do I feel guilty about this, and should I avoid trying to engage with him? No. I'm trying to help him to interact, at least with me, in a normal and sensible manner. Even if Andy were to intervene and shut off his account, he would probably just go to some creationist website and continue. Only the people who actually deal with him on a personal non-internet basis are going to be able to help. SamHB 13:18, 5 July 2015 (EDT)

That recent edit of yours on main talk was a real slap in the race. SamHB 21:35, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

You Maestro!!!

Thanks. I'm currently doing this on an ad-hoc basis, but I can zip up the RSS posts for the edits I do have (which is incomplete) and send it to you. GregG (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

That would be wonderful! I can then do the rest.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Clickbait

Why did you use a Conservapedia headline as an example in the page you originated, "Clickbait"? Is that what you think the Main Page right section is? Clickbait? VargasMilan (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

My opinion is that many of the teapartycrusaders.com headlines (linked to on MPR) are clickbait (which is unfortunate, since I think honest headlines are much better). The other headlines are usually high quality. I don't think clickbait TPC headlines should be so prevalent on our main page, but one particular administrator apparently thinks otherwise. And since my previous attempts to improve MPR have been unsuccessful, I don't bother with that approach anymore. Thanks, GregG (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

The title was: "When CNN Said 'It's Ok To Abort Babies', Ben Carson's Reply Left The Whole Room Silent". It may or may not have been a misleading title. Was there an audience for the CNN interview? Probably not, but it is unclear. Given the brevity of the clip and the camera angle, I don't know if there was an audience or not (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). I think you need a more definitive example of clickbait. I deleted your second example. Conservative (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

I accidentally deleted the whole article. I restored the article with some changes. Conservative (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2015 (EDT)